Filed 4/6/17 P. v. Oneill CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NEIL ALLEN ONEILL,

Defendant and Appellant.


E066619

(Super.Ct.No. FVI1403127)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed.
Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Neil Allen Oneill appeals from the trial court’s order finding him in violation of his mandatory supervision and sentencing him to two years in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2014, in Orange County Superior Court case No. 13WF3261, defendant pled guilty to one count of possession for sale of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). He also admitted that he had suffered a prior drug-related conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). In return, defendant was sentenced to a split three-year term pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), with one year to be served in county jail and two years of mandatory supervision on various terms and conditions.
On May 29, 2014, the Orange County Probation Department filed a motion to transfer defendant’s mandatory supervision to San Bernardino County, defendant’s place of residence.
On July 31, 2014, the Orange County Superior Court granted the transfer motion and transferred the case to San Bernardino County.
On August 25, 2014, the San Bernardino County Superior Court accepted jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to section 1203.9 as San Bernardino County case No. FVI1403127. At that time, the San Bernardino County Superior Court also set a probation modification hearing for September 11, 2014, and ordered defendant to appear. Defendant was not present at that time and the court ordered the San Bernardino County Probation Department to notify defendant of the hearing.
On August 28, 2014, Probation Officer Hachey notified defendant via “Notice of Hearing Memo” and telephone to appear at the September 11, 2014 hearing. The probation officer also notified defendant that if he failed to appear on that date, a bench warrant for his arrest would be issued.
Defendant did not appear on September 11, 2014. The trial revoked defendant’s mandatory supervision and issued a warrant for defendant’s arrest.
At a hearing on March 25, 2016, defendant was present in custody. Defendant’s mandatory supervision was revoked and the matter was referred to the probation department for a supplemental report and recommendation.
On April 14, 2016, the probation department filed a supplemental report, alleging defendant had violated several terms of his mandatory supervision, including that he violate no law, cooperate with probation, neither use nor possess a controlled substance, and register his address with law enforcement. The report noted that on September 24, 2014, defendant was pulled over by the Huntington Beach Police Department for a moving violation. After the officers discovered defendant had a warrant for his arrest issued by the San Bernardino County Superior Court, they conducted a patdown search and found defendant to be in possession of a controlled substance. The officers also found a hotel room card in defendant’s pocket and searched his hotel room. In the hotel room, officers discovered a large amount of methamphetamine and heroin. Defendant was subsequently arrested for possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and bringing a controlled substance into jail. When asked whether he knew there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest in San Bernardino County, defendant stated, “ ‘Yeah, I figured I had one since I never checked in with anyone over there.’ ” Defendant also admitted that he had never registered as a narcotics offender pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590 as ordered by his probationary terms.
On May 5, 2016, defendant’s counsel filed a motion requesting defendant be awarded dual presentence custody credits because the current revocation resulted from the new Orange County offenses. The People filed opposition on May 24, 2016, arguing defendant was not entitled to actual credits served on another case because defendant’s custody in this case was not based solely on the new offenses. The People noted that defendant had absconded and failed to appear at the September 11, 2014 court hearing.
On May 31, 2016, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for dual credits.
A contested mandatory supervision violation hearing was held on June 10, 2016. At that time, Probation Officer Hachey testified that once the case was transferred to San Bernardino County, he had called defendant’s reported telephone number on August 28, 2014, and left a voicemail message, directing defendant to contact him immediately. On August 28, 2014, Probation Officer Hachey had also sent a letter to defendant at his reported address, notifying him of the September 11, 2014 court hearing. Probation Officer Hachey noted that defendant’s mandatory supervisory terms required defendant to follow all reasonable directives of probation officers.
Probation Officer Escoto testified that he had written the supplemental probation report and that he had interviewed defendant on April 11, 2016. In reviewing defendant’s files, Probation Officer Escoto stated that defendant’s mandatory supervisory terms required defendant to violate no law, cooperate with probation officers, follow all reasonable directives of the probation department, not possess a controlled substance, and to register his address with law enforcement. Probation Officer Escoto noted that defendant had been arrested and subsequently convicted of drug-related charges and that defendant had acknowledged he had not registered as a narcotics offender. Probation Officer Escoto admitted that he had not independently verified whether defendant had registered and explained that he “went off of what [defendant] said.”
Following argument, the trial court found defendant had violated his mandatory supervision by violating the law, failing to cooperate in a plan of rehabilitation, failing to follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer, and possessing controlled substances. Defense counsel renewed the request for dual credits from the sentence defendant served in the new Orange County case, and the trial court denied the request, noting the court had already denied that motion. The court thereafter revoked defendant’s mandatory supervision and sentenced defendant to county jail for the remaining two years of his sentence, with a credit of 377 days for time served.
On August 3, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:



RAMIREZ
P. J.



SLOUGH
J.